Karaya dar ko malak makan bechne ke baad bhi nikal sakta hai.
 |
| Karaya dar ko malak makan bechne ke baad bhi nikal sakta hai. |
**دعوی:**
مدعی، آقیلہ عابد، نے مدعا علیہ، چوہدری بشیر احمد، کے خلاف دعویٰ دائر کیا کہ مدعا علیہ کی کرایہ داری برقرار ہے، باوجود اس کے کہ مدعی نے جائیداد کو محمد عباس بشیر کو فروخت کرنے کا معاہدہ کیا تھا۔ مدعی نے کرایہ کی عدم ادائیگی کی بنیاد پر اخراج کی درخواست دائر کی تھی۔
**جواب:**
مدعا علیہ، چوہدری بشیر احمد، نے جواب دیا کہ چونکہ جائیداد کا معاہدہ فروخت محمد عباس بشیر کے ساتھ 07.06.2011 کو ہو چکا تھا، اس لئے ان کی کرایہ داری منسوخ ہو چکی ہے اور اب وہ مدعی کے کرایہ دار نہیں ہیں۔
**عدالت کا آرڈر:**
عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ مدعا علیہ کی کرایہ داری فروخت کے معاہدے کے باوجود برقرار رہی، کیونکہ کرایہ داری کو صرف قانونی طور پر منسوخ کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ عدالت نے تصدیق کی کہ صرف فروخت کے معاہدے کی بنیاد پر کرایہ داری خودبخود منسوخ نہیں ہوتی۔ مدعی کی اخراج کی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا گیا اور عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ مدعا علیہ کی کرایہ داری معاہدے کے مطابق برقرار رہتی ہے، جب تک کہ اس کو قانونی طور پر منسوخ نہ کیا جائے۔
**کیس کا خلاصہ: آقیلہ عابد بمقابلہ چوہدری بشیر احمد**
**حقائق:**
- **مدعی**: آقیلہ عابد
- **مدعا علیہ**: چوہدری بشیر احمد
- **مسئلہ**: کیا مدعا علیہ کی کرایہ داری اُس وقت بھی برقرار ہے جب مدعی نے جائیداد کو تیسرے فریق (محمد عباس بشیر) کو فروخت کرنے کا معاہدہ کیا تھا؟
**اہم نکات:**
1. **کرایہ داری کے معاہدے**: مدعی نے جائیداد 28.12.2002 اور 09.11.2005 کو کرایے پر دی۔
2. **فروخت کا معاہدہ**: مدعی نے 07.06.2011 کو محمد عباس بشیر کے ساتھ فروخت کا معاہدہ کیا۔
3. **اخراج کی درخواستیں**: مدعی نے کرایہ کی عدم ادائیگی پر اخراج کی درخواستیں دائر کیں، جن میں سے کچھ واپس لے لی گئیں یا مسترد کر دی گئیں۔
4. **اپیلیٹ کورٹ کا فیصلہ**: اپیلیٹ کورٹ نے اخراج کی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔
**عدالتی تجزیہ:**
- **کرایہ داری کی حیثیت**: عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ فروخت کے معاہدے کے باوجود مدعا علیہ کی کرایہ داری برقرار رہی، کیونکہ کرایہ داری کے تعلقات کو صرف قانونی طور پر منسوخ کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
- **قانونی نظیر**: عدالت نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ فروخت کا معاہدہ خودبخود کرایہ داری کو منسوخ نہیں کرتا، جب تک کہ اسے قانونی طور پر منسوخ نہ کیا جائے۔
**نتیجہ:**
- عدالت نے تصدیق کی کہ مدعا علیہ کی کرایہ داری برقرار ہے اور فروخت کے معاہدے کی بنیاد پر اس کا منسوخ ہونا درست نہیں۔
- مدعی کی اخراج کی درخواست کی حمایت کرتے ہوئے عدالت نے تصدیق کی کہ کرایہ داری کا تعلق معاہدے کے مطابق برقرار رہتا ہے۔
یہ فیصلہ واضح کرتا ہے کہ کرایہ داری کے معاہدے مخصوص قانونی دفعات کے تحت چلتے ہیں اور جائیداد کی ملکیت یا فروخت کے معاہدے سے کرایہ داری کی حیثیت پر کوئی اثر نہیں پڑتا جب تک کہ اسے باقاعدہ طور پر منسوخ نہ کیا جائے۔
**کیس کا خلاصہ**: **آقیلہ عابد بمقابلہ چوہدری بشیر احمد**
**حقائق:**
- **مدعی**: آقیلہ عابد
- **مدعا علیہ**: چوہدری بشیر احمد اور دیگر
- **مسئلہ**: کیا مدعا علیہ (چوہدری بشیر احمد) کی کرایہ داری اُس وقت بھی برقرار ہے جب مدعی نے جائیداد کو تیسرے فریق (محمد عباس بشیر) کو فروخت کرنے کا معاہدہ کیا تھا؟
**اہم نکات:**
1. **کرایہ داری کے معاہدے**: مدعی نے 28.12.2002 اور 09.11.2005 کو جائیداد کرایے پر دی تھی۔
2. **فروخت کا معاہدہ**: مدعی نے 07.06.2011 کو محمد عباس بشیر کے ساتھ جائیداد فروخت کرنے کا معاہدہ کیا۔
3. **اخراج کی درخواستیں**: مدعی نے کرایہ کی عدم ادائیگی پر متعدد بار اخراج کی درخواستیں دائر کیں، لیکن کچھ درخواستیں واپس لے لی گئیں یا مسترد کر دی گئیں۔
4. **اپیلیٹ کورٹ کا فیصلہ**: اپیلیٹ کورٹ نے اخراج کی درخواست مسترد کر دی، جس کے بعد یہ آئینی درخواست دائر کی گئی۔
**عدالتی تجزیہ:**
- **کرایہ داری کی حیثیت**: عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ فروخت کے معاہدے کے باوجود مدعا علیہ کی کرایہ داری برقرار رہی کیونکہ کرایہ داری کے تعلقات کو صرف قانونی طور پر منسوخ کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
- **قانونی نظیر**: عدالت نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ معاہدہ برائے فروخت خودبخود کرایہ داری کو منسوخ نہیں کرتا جب تک کہ اس کو قانونی طور پر منسوخ نہ کیا جائے۔
**نتیجہ:**
- عدالت نے تصدیق کی کہ مدعا علیہ کی کرایہ داری برقرار ہے اور فروخت کے معاہدے کی بنیاد پر اس کا منسوخ ہونا درست نہیں۔
- مدعی کی اخراج کی درخواست کی حمایت کرتے ہوئے عدالت نے تصدیق کی کہ کرایہ داری کا تعلق معاہدے کے مطابق برقرار رہتا ہے۔
یہ فیصلہ ظاہر کرتا ہے کہ کرایہ داری کے معاہدے مخصوص قانونی دفعات کے تحت چلتے ہیں اور جائیداد کی ملکیت یا فروخت کے معاہدے سے کرایہ داری کی حیثیت پر کوئی اثر نہیں پڑتا جب تک کہ اسے باقاعدہ طور پر منسوخ نہ کیا جائے۔
Stereo H C J D A 38.
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P. No.213378/2018.
Aqeela Abid
Vs.
Ch. Bashir Ahmad etc.
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing
22.09.2021
Petitioner by
M/S Jawad Jamil, Advocate and Moeen
Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate
Respondent by:
Mr. Riaz Hussain Chaudhry, Advocate
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J. This constitutional petition is
directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2017
passed by the learned Appellate Court.
2.
Relevant facts are that respondent No.1 leased out
property measuring 10-Marla 25-square feet bearing House
No.44, Ali Block, Ittefaq Town, Multan Road, Lahore (property)
from the petitioner through rent deed dated 28.12.2002 against
monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- for period of 03 years. After expiry
of aforesaid period, fresh lease agreement dated 09.11.2005 was
executed for period of 02 years @ Rs.9500/- per month and
respondent No.1 also paid Rs.20,000/- as security. On default in
payment of rent, the petitioner filed first ejectment petition on
16.02.2008, however, due to some technical error in the
pleadings, the said ejectment petition was withdrawn on
10.04.2010 and second ejectment petition was filed on
W.P. No.213378/2018
-2-
04.05.2010. However, the said ejectment petition was again
withdrawn on 02.03.2011 on the plea that petitioner has entered
into agreement to sell with one Mian Muhammad Mudassar and
Mian Muhammad Abbas. Finally the third ejectment petition
was filed on 02.04.2013 on the ground that petitioner has
defaulted in payment of rent since 2012. The respondent No.1
filed leave to contest application in which he pleaded that as
house in question has already been sold through agreement to
sell dated 07.06.2011 to one Muhammad Abbas Bashir,
therefore, the tenancy is revoked and respondent No.1 is no
more the tenant of the petitioner. During pendency of the
ejectment petition, the said Muhammad Abbas Bashir also filed
application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as party
in the ejectment petition, however, said application was
dismissed vide order dated 28.05.2016. Finally the ejectment
petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by the learned Rent
Controller on 26.05.2017. However, in appeal through impugned
order dated 23.12.2017, the ejectment petition filed by the
petitioner was dismissed and the ejectment order passed by the
learned Rent Controller was set aside. The petitioner being
aggrieved has filed this constitutional petition.
3.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
admittedly respondent No.1 is tenant of the petitioner and mere
agreement to sell with one Muhammad Abbas Bashir does not
change the status of the respondent No.1 as that of a tenant. He
W.P. No.213378/2018
-3-
further submits that the possession of the house in question was
always remained with the tenant in pursuance to tenancy
agreement and was never handed over to Muhammad Abbas or
any third party in pursuance to agreement to sell. Submits that
Muhammad Abbas Bashir did not make full payment in terms of
agreement to sell and even otherwise agreement to sell has no
bearing on tenancy under section 10 of the Punjab Rented
Premises Act, 2009 (Act).
4.
The learned counsel for the respondents on the other
hand submits that the house in question was sold by the
petitioner through agreement to sell dated 07.06.2011 to
Muhammad Abbas Bashir who is son of deceased respondent
No.1. Submits that the possession of house was also given to
said Muhammad Abbas Bashir, therefore, respondent No.1 who
has since been passed away, is no more the tenant of the
petitioner since 07.06.2011. Learned counsel has placed reliance
on Mian Umar Ikram ul Haque vs. Dr. Shahida Hasnain and
another (2016 SCMR 2186) to argue that section 10 of the Act
is not applicable in present matter.
5.
Arguments heard. There is no dispute that petitioner is
still the owner of the house in the question and the same was
handed over to respondent No.1 as a tenant in pursuance to
written lease agreements dated 28.12.2002 and 09.11.2005.
Mere fact that the agreement to sell dated 07.06.2011 was
executed between petitioner and one Muhammad Abbas Bashir
W.P. No.213378/2018
-4-
will not change the status of the petitioner as of a tenant
especially when till date neither any suit on the basis of said
agreement to sell has been decreed nor property in question has
been transferred in the name of Muhammad Abbas Bashir.
6.
It is not the case of the respondent No.1 that after
07.06.2011, he took over the possession from Muhammad Abbas
Bashir or started paying rent to said Muhammad Abbas Bashir
rather he has only denied his status as of a tenant on the basis of
agreement to sell between petitioner and Muhammad Abbas
Bashir. It is also not disputed that application filed by
Muhammad Abbas Bashir under Order I Rule 10 CPC to be
impleaded as party in the ejectment petition was dismissed on
28.05.2016, which order being not further challenged has
already attained finality.
7.
No doubt after the death of respondent No.1,
Muhammad Abbas Bashir was also impleaded as respondent
being one of the legal heirs of respondent No.1. However, in
these proceedings his status will be merely of legal heir of the
tenant and not as occupant of the property on the basis of
agreement to sell dated 07.06.2011, especially once his own
application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was already dismissed
on 28.05.2016 and said order has also attained finality.
8.
Though the learned counsel for the respondents
vehemently argued that in pursuance to agreement to sell dated
07.06.2011, possession of the house was also handed over to
W.P. No.213378/2018
-5-
Muhammad Abbas Bashir. However, no such document is
available on record between the petitioner and respondent No.1,
whereby tenant was directed either to handover possession of the
house to Muhammad Abbas Bashir or he was informed that from
07.06.2011 the tenancy is revoked. Even otherwise, merely on
the basis of agreement to sell, the respondents/tenants cannot
presume revocation of tenancy, when it is settled law that mere
agreement to sell does not confer any title and the only right
available to the parties is to file suit for specific performance. In
this regard, reliance is placed on Islamabad Chamber of
Commerce and Industries, Islamabad (PLD 1986 Lahore 393)
and Mst. Gulshan vs. Ameer Ali and others (PLD 1997 Karachi
292).
9.
The next legal question require determination is that
whether section 10 of the Act is applicable in the present case.
For convenience section 10 of the Act is reproduced hereunder:-
“10. Effect of other agreement.– An agreement to sell or
any other agreement entered into between the landlord and
the tenant, after the execution of a tenancy agreement, in
respect of premises and for a matter other than a matter
provided under the tenancy agreement, shall not affect the
relationship of landlord and tenant unless the tenancy is
revoked through a written agreement entered before the
Rent Registrar in accordance with the provisions of section
5.”
There is no doubt that under section 10 of the Act, the agreement
to sell or any other agreement entered into between the landlord
and the tenant after the execution of a tenancy agreement in
respect of the premises shall not effect the relationship of
W.P. No.213378/2018
-6-
landlord and tenant unless the tenancy is revoked through a
written agreement entered before the Rent Register in
accordance with the provision of section 5 of the Act. However,
in order to apply section 10 of the Act, the agreement to sell
must be between landlord and tenant and as per law settled by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mian Umer Ikram ul Haq supra, if
person is in occupation of the premises by virtue of agreement to
sell and not because he was a tenant, this section 10 of the Act
will have no bearing on the matter.
10.
In the present case indeed the agreement to sell dated
07.06.2011 is not between the landlord/petitioner and respondent
No.1/tenant. However, admittedly the respondent No.1 was not
in occupation of the premises in pursuance to said agreement to
sell but by virtue of rent deed dated 28.12.2002. In the
application for leave to contest, it is neither the case of the
respondent No.1 that possession was handed over to him by
virtue of agreement to sell dated 07.06.2011, nor it was claimed
by him that after agreement to sell, Muhammad Abbas Bashir
handed over the possession to him as of a tenant or otherwise.
11.
In application for leave to contest, the only claim of
respondent No.1 is that as petitioner entered into agreement to
sell with one Muhammad Abbas Bashir and handed over the
possession to him in the said agreement, the tenancy has been
revoked. I am afraid the above plea is misconceived. Once
respondent No.1 entered into premises as a tenant of the
W.P. No.213378/2018
-7-
petitioner, his status will remain as of a tenant unless the tenancy
is revoked specifically between petitioner and the respondent
No.1. The respondent No.1 cannot presume automatic
revocation of tenancy just because petitioner entered into
agreement to sell with one Muhammad Abbas Bashir.
12.
Section 10 of the Act provides that the agreement to sell
entered into between landlord and tenant after the execution of
tenancy agreement shall not affect the relationship of landlord
and tenant unless tenancy is revoked through a written
agreement entered before the Rent Registrar in accordance with
provision of section 5 of the Act. No doubt in the present case,
alleged agreement to sell dated 07.06.2011 is between petitioner
and son of the respondent No.1 namely Muhammad Abbas.
However, when it is settled law that agreement to sell does not
confer any title, the tenancy will not revoke automatically unless
in pursuance to said agreement to sell tenancy was specifically
revoked.
13.
Though agreement to sell does not confer any title,
however if at all there was any claim available on the basis of
agreement to sell dated 07.06.2011, it was to Muhammad Abbas
Bashir. However admittedly not only his application to become
party in the ejectment petition was dismissed on 28.05.2016, but
till date neither his suit for specific performance has been
decreed nor property has been transferred in his name through
any registered document.
W.P. No.213378/2018
-8-
14.
In nutshell the respondent No.1 or his legal heirs cannot
take refuge behind agreement to sell dated 07.06.2011, (which
has no nexus with the respondent No.1), and not only defaulted
in payment of the rent for the last many years but also refuse to
return the premises denying the relationship of landlord and
tenant. This is a unique unfortunate situation where though
petitioner is still lawful owner of the property but she is neither
receiving any rent of said property nor its possession is being
returned to her by tenant due to impugned judgment.
15.
The case of Mian Umar Ikram ul Haq supra relied upon
by the learned counsel for the respondents actually supports the
case of the petitioner. In the said case, it is held that when the
party is in occupation of the premises by virtue of agreement to
sell entered between the parties and not because he was a tenant
then the case is not covered under section 10 of the Act.
However, in the present case, the respondent No.1 admittedly
entered into premises on the basis of tenancy agreements dated
28.12.2002 and 09.11.2005 and not on the basis of agreement to
sell dated 07.06.2011 between petitioner and Muhammad Abbas
Bashir, hence his tenancy is not protected by terms of agreement
to sell. In this regard reliance is also placed on Dr. Shahida
Hasnain vs. Mian Umar Ikram ul Haq and another (PLD 2016
Lahore 123), Haji Muhammad Saeed vs. Additional District
Judge (2012 MLD 108), Mst. Zarina Khan vs. Mst. Farzana
Shoaib (2017 SCMR 330) and Ayesha Moeen vs. Appellate Rent
W.P.No.22688/2021
11
month is illegal or against the provision of section 13(3)
of the Act. Therefore, this petition being merit-less is
dismissed.
(ABID AZIZ SHEIKH)
JUDGE
Approved for Reporting
JUDGE
Comments
Post a Comment